^ 

TW^ 

o\d 

tV^^ 

V/WVxs 

3.    ^eeaWe-r 

S.  r.'oi 


■^^^ 


s^ 


^t  iSst  ^¥aiHm  ^ 


^^. 


fit. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


*/5 


'4f 


Division 
Section  ..y 


1 

copy] 


*     MAY   «    1903 


The  Old  Tradition 

and 

The  New 


By  Prof.  Willis   J.  Beecher.  Auburn  Seminary 


The  substance  of  this  treatise 
appeared  as  an  article  in  The 
CoNGREGATiONALiST  of  March  7. 
It  is  republished  in  response  to  re- 
quests. A  considerable  portion 
which  was  omitted  for  lack  of 
space  when  the  article  was  first 
printed  is  now  restored,  making  the 
argument  complete,  as  it  came  from 
the  writer. 


THE  OLD  TRADITION  AND  THE  NEW 


In  a  publication  of  the  year  1902  may  be 
found  the  four  paragraphs,  defining  the  issues 
at  stake  between  the  older  orthodoxy  and  the 
type  of  Higher  Criticism  now  currently  de- 
nominated the  Modern  View.  I  do  not  name 
the  author  because  I  prefer  to  treat  the  publi- 
cation as  representative  rather  than  personal. 
The  ability  displayed  in  it  entitles  it  to  be  so 
treated.  Many  statements  of  like  character 
have  appeared ;  this  is  one  of  particular  excel- 
lence, chosen  from  among  the  many. 

"And  what  are  these  two  methods?  That 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  is — that  the  Bible  shall 
be  interpreted  by  a  devout  study  of  its  various 
parts  with  all  the  light  that  can  be  thrown  upon 
it  from  all  sources.  Its  concrete  purpose  is  to 
ascertain  its  full  and  exact  history.  It  has  no 
theory  of  inspiration ;  it  simply  investigates, 
and  reports  what  it  finds. 

"The  method  of  the  other  side  is  based  on  an 
unquestioning  assent  to  the  Bible  as  a  miracu- 
lously inspired  book,  every  word  literally  true, 
every  event  historical,  without  myth  or  legend 
— infallible — the  whole  being  the  product  of  the 
direct  inspiration  of  God  and  therefore  equally 
authoritative  in  all  its  parts.  Such  and  so  un- 
like are  the  two  methods." 
5 


"The  two  methods  cannot  be  mingled ;  each 
excludes  the  other  by  its  definition  of  itself.  If 
either  side  crosses  the  dividing  line  in  order 
to  make  exceptions,  the  issue  between  them 
dies  out  and  debate  ceases  for  lack  of  a  ques- 
tion." 

"It  should  be  enough  to  dispel  all  doubts  and 
fears  over  this  subject  that  almost  the  whole 
body  of  educated  teachers  in  our  colleges  and 
theological  seminaries,  as  well  as  those  in 
Great  Britain,  accept  the  Higher  Criticism  in 
its  main  points.  .  .  .  If  this  vast  body  of  men 
are  regarded  as  self-deceived  and  mistaken  in 
conclusions  which  they  have  reached  through 
close  and  conscientious  scrutiny,  the  question 
may  well  be  raised  whether  those  who  doubt 
them  are  sane." 

The  first  of  these  four  paragraphs,  as  here 
arranged,  defines  the  position  of  the  Higher 
Criticism ;  the  second  defines  the  position  of 
the  old  orthodoxy;  the  third  affirms  that  we 
must  all  necessarily  take  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  positions;  the  fourth  gives  a  reason, 
affirmed  to  be  sufficient,  why  we  should  prefer 
the  position  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

I.  The  definition  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
here  given  is  a  definition  of  an  ideal.  No  well 
read  man  would  say  that  it  is  true  of  all  higher 
critics  now  living.  There  are  higher  critics 
and  higher  critics. 

The  cited  passage  says  that  the  higher  crit- 
ics practice  "a  devout  study"  of  the  Scriptures. 
6 


Their  opponents  take  pleasure  in  testifying 
that  there  are  devout  higher  critics  among  the 
advocates  of  the  Modern  View.  Many  of  them 
are  devout  in  a  strictly  theistic  sense.  Others 
are  devout  in  the  sense  in  which  an  atheist  may 
be  devout.  Still  others  are  distinctly  and  avow- 
edly not  devout.  It  is  not  probable  that  those 
who  are  Oiristianly  devout  would  for  a  moment 
think  of  claiming  that  they  constitute  a  ma- 
jority. 

Again,  the  cited  passage  says  that  the  High- 
er Criticism  studies  the  Bible  "with  all  the 
light  that  can  be  thrown  upon  it  from  all 
sources."  The  one  principal  objection  made 
to  the  prevalent  Higher  Criticism  by  its  op- 
ponents is  that  it  refuses  to  do  just  this  thing. 
Their  objection  is  not  that  it  refuses  to  ac- 
cept their  theory  of  inspiration,  but  that  it  re- 
fuses to  use  "all  the  light  .  .  from  all  sources." 
Their  view  is  that  to  an  irrational  degree  it 
rejects  testimony,  particularly  the  testimony  of 
the  Bible  itself,  and  that  in  the  same  irration- 
al manner  it  accepts  mere  conjecture  in  the 
place  of  evidence. 

The  passage  asserts  that  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism "has  no  theory  of  inspiration."  This 
may  be  true  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  but  it 
7 


certainly  is  not  true  of  the  higher  critics. 
Some  of  them  are  silent  on  the  subject;  but 
a  good  many  seek  to  reassure  their  opponents 
by  affirming  that  the  Bible  has  an  inspiration 
that  renders  it  unique;  while  others,  probably 
the  majority,  treat  the  Biblical  claims  to 
unique  inspiration  as  mere  fable,  and  make 
this  presupposition  basal  in  their  investigations. 
The  theory  that  the  Scriptures  are  false  in 
claiming  to  be  inspired  is  just  as  really  a  the- 
ory of  inspiration  as  is  the  theory  that  they 
are  inspired.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  pub- 
lished works  of  the  scholars  of  the  Modern 
View  are  as  much  afifected  by  the  opinions 
their  authors  hold  concerning  inspiration  as 
are  the  published  works  of  the  older  orthodoxy. 
Once  more,  the  cited  passage  says  that  the 
Higher  Criticism  "simply  investigates,  and  re- 
ports what  it  finds."  It  does  not  confine  its 
report,  however,  to  matters  of  fact  as  distin- 
guished from  philosophy  or  doctrine.  Higher 
critics  of  reputation  report  that  they  find  the 
doctrines,  heretofore  held  by  Christians  to  be 
either  groundless  or  positively  false  in  such 
matters  as  the  incarnation,  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
his  miracles,  his  resurrection,  liis  atonement, 
his  mediatorial  character,  many  of  his  specific 
8 


teachings,  a  large  part  of  his  biography,  the 
personal  Holy  Spirit,  the  individual  interest 
taken  by  God  in  his  creatures.  If  any  one 
thinks  that  this  is  too  sweeping  a  statement 
of  the  case,  let  him  take  a  full  course  of  read- 
ing in  the  Encylopcdia  Bihlica,  or  in  other 
works  of  that  stripe.  After  that,  let  him  ask 
himself:  Provided  these  men  are  correct,  can 
we  be  sure  that  even  the  peerless  humanity  of 
Jesus  is  anything  more  than  a  figment  of  the 
imagination?  Provided  they  are  correct,  is 
the  fatherhood  of  God  anything  else  than  a 
figure  of  speech? 

Some  one  will  reply  that  it  is  not  fair  to 
charge  higher  critics  indiscriminately  with  the 
teaching  of  such  doctrines  as  these.  Of  course 
it  is  not ;  that  is  the  point  I  wish  to  make. 
And  it  is  equally  unfair  to  credit  them  in- 
discriminately with  a  fine  devotedness  to  evan- 
gelical doctrine.  If  the  higher  critics  who  love 
the  gospel  will  persist  in  ranging  themselves 
with  those  who  deny  every  teaching  of  the 
gospel,  they  can  hardly  blame  others  for  fol- 
lowing the  same  classification.  The  higher 
critics  who  reject  virtually  the  entire  range  of 
distinctive  Christian  teaching  are  neither  few 
nor  inconspicuous  nor  reticent.  They  claim 
9 


that  this  rejection  is  the  logical  result  of  the 
principles  of  Higher  Criticism  accepted  in  the 
Modern  View.     In  making  this  claim  they  are 
immensely  in  the  majority;    for  in  this  point 
all    the    Christian    opponents    of    the    Modern 
View  agree  with  them,  and  the  avowed  ene- 
mies   of    Christianity    agree    with    them.      In 
denying  that  these  conclusions  properly  result 
from  the  premises  with  which  they  start,  the 
gospel-loving    higher    critics    are    a    relatively 
small  minority.     This  is  the  case  as  it  stands : 
An   influential  portion  of  the   scholars  of  the 
Modern    View    repudiate    most    of    the    great 
truths  of   Christianity,  as  these  have  hitherto 
been    understood ;     the    present    trend    of    the 
Modern  View  is  strongly  in  this  direction ;  and 
nowhere   among   the   scholars   of   the   Modern 
View   is   there   an   expression  of  any  but   the 
mildest  opposition  to  it. 

II.  In  the  passage  cited  it  is  affirmed  that  "the 
method  of  the  other  side  is  based  on  an  un- 
questioning assent  to  the  Bible  as  a  miraculous- 
ly inspired  book."  "Unquestioning  assent"  "has 
come  to  be  an  ambiguous  term.  It  is  one  thing 
to  demand  unquestioning  assent  before  inves- 
tigation, and  quite  another  to  demand  it  as  a 
result    of    investigation.      The    term    may    be 

10 


applied,  though  not  felicitously,  to  the  attitude 
of  one  who  unhesitatingly  clings  to  the  con- 
victions he  has  reached  through  investigation. 
It  is  only  in  this  sense  that  it  truthfully  de- 
scribes the  Protestant  orthodox  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Scriptures.  At  least  the  common 
doctrine  of  American  Protestant  scholars  has 
not  been  that  we  are  to  believe  the  Scriptures 
unquestioningly  without  investigating  their 
claims,  but  that  we  are  first  to  investigate, 
and  then,  if  we  find  them  to  be  the  Word  of 
God,  accord  to  them  the  credence  to  which  that 
fact  entitles  them. 

Again,  the  cited  passage  says  that  the  older 
view  of  the  Bible  counts  "every  word  literally 
true,  every  event  historical."  Here  again  is 
an  ambiguity  of  terms.  If  by  "literally  true" 
one  means  thoroughly  true  in  their  own  proper 
meaning,  then  certainly  the  older  tradition 
counts  all  parts  of  the  Bible  as  literally  true; 
but  it  has  never  taught  that  they  were  literally 
true  in  the  sense  of  wholly  excluding  figure  of 
speech  or  fiction.  Doubtless  it  has  been  too 
restricted  in  its  recognition  of  fiction,  but  in  its 
most  rigid  construction  it  has  recognized  at 
least  the  parables  of  Jesus  and  the  fables  of 
Jotham  and  Jehoash,  with  other  instances  that 
II 


were  at  least  open.  It  is  even  true  that  the 
most  glaring  excrescences  of  the  older  tradi- 
tion, namely,  its  allegorical  interpretations  and 
some  of  its  spiritualizing  interpretations,  have 
been  along  the  line  of  an  undue  recognition  of 
fictional  elements. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  older  tradition 
has  been  narrow  and  inadequate  in  its  literary 
theory  of  the  Scriptures.  It  has  been  too  much 
dominated  by  the  idea  that  the  supernatural  is 
the  unnatural,  too  ready  to  interpret  marvels 
into  the  Scriptures,  too  open  to  the  suggestion 
that  faith  deserves  credit  for  giving  credence 
to  the  incredible.  And  if  this  is  true  of  the 
old  tradition  itself,  it  is  also  true  that  among 
its  thousands  of  advocates  some  have  been  in- 
cluded who  were  not  well  balanced,  and  from 
whose  writings  a  collection  of  absurdities 
might  be  gathered.  There  is  a  wide  range  of 
difference  of  opinion  among  the  advocates  of 
the  older  tradition  as  among  the  advocates  of 
the  Modern  View;  but  no  merely  mechanical 
doctrine  of  inerrancy  has  ever  been  the  prevail- 
ing doctrine. 

There  are  a  great  many  of  us,  opposed  to 
the  so-called  Modern  View,  who  experience 
no  sensation  as  of  one  looking  into  a  mirror, 

12 


when  we  read  such  a  passage  as  the  one  that 
has  been  cited.  Indeed,  we  are  so  presumptuous 
as  to  claim  that  we  are  trying  to  interpret 
the  Bible  "by  a  devout  study  of  its  various 
parts  with  all  the  light  that  can  be  thrown  up- 
on it  from  all  sources;"  and  that  our  "concrete 
purpose  is  to  ascertain  its  full  and  exact  his- 
tory." At  the  outset  of  an  investigation  we 
do  not  assume  it  to  be  a  fact  that  the  Bible  is 
uniquely  inspired;  but  we  equally  avoid  the 
assumption  that  it  is  not  so  inspired.  We  do 
not  assume  it  to  be  a  fact  that  the  statements 
of  the  Bible  are  all  thoroughly  truthful,  but  we 
also  avoid  assuming  that  they  are  untruthful. 
We  are  ready  to  recognize  elements  of  fiction 
in  the  Bible  to  any  extent  to  which  the  evidence 
actually  shows  that  they  are  there.  We  are 
aware  that  fiction,  whether  in  the  form  of 
parable,  fable,  allegory,  poem,  myth  or  legend, 
may  be  as  truthful  in  its  own  proper  meaning 
as  fact  can  be,  and  may  teach  tlie  same  spirit- 
ual lessons  which  it  would  teach  if  it  were  fact. 
But  we  insist  that  questions  of  this  kind  shall 
be  decided  upon  evidence  and  not  according 
to  the  exigencies  of  some  preconceived  theory. 
And  in  dealing  with  the  evidence  we  insist  that 
the  testimony  of  the  Bible  on  any  point  shall 
be  examined  before  it  is  rejected. 


We  are  ready  to  accept  evolution  as  a  fact 
to  the  extent  to  which  it  is  proven  to  be  a 
fact.  Beyond  that,  we  are  wilHng  to  accept  it 
as  a  working  hypothesis  up  to  the  point  where 
it  comes  into  conflict  with  facts.  Our  behef 
that  the  supreme  energy  of  the  universe  is  a 
personal  God  does  not  preclude  our  accepting 
evolution  as  a  method  in  which  the  personal 
God  ordinarily  works.  But  we  do  not  believe 
that  Jehovah  is  the  slave  of  evolution  any  more 
than  that  Jupiter  is  the  slave  of  the  fates. 

We  try  to  deal  with  the  miraculous  ele- 
ments in  the  Bible  on  the  basis  of  the  fair 
weighing  of  evidence.  Past  generations  have 
shown  a  disposition  to  interpret  marvels  into 
the  Scriptures.  We  are  willing  to  part  with 
all  supposed  miraculous  elements  that  can  fair- 
ly be  eliminated  by  just  interpretation  or  ex- 
planation or  any  other  process  consistent  with 
the  evidence  in  the  case.  But  we  insist  that  some 
one's  notion  that  God  never  works  a  miracle 
is  not  by  itself  a  sufficient  reason  for  declaring 
accredited  testimony  to  be  false. 

In  fine,  the  question  of  method  that  separates 
us  from  tlie  higher  critics  of  the  Modern  View 
is  the  question  as  to  how  testimony  is  to  be  re- 
garded.    We  affirm  that  in  the  beginnings  of 
14  ; 


an  investigation  statements  of  fact  are  to  be 
provisionally  received  as  true,  except  as  there 
exist  reasons  for  not  so  receiving  them;  and 
that,  as  the  investigation  proceeds,  these  pro- 
visional results  are  to  be  finally  accepted  save 
in  so  far  as  reasons  may  appear  for  rejecting 
or  modifying  them,  or  for  holding  them  open. 
This  differs  from  the  rule  sometimes  attributed 
to  us,  namely,  that  Biblical  statements  of  fact 
are  to  be  accepted  unless  they  are  positively 
disproved.  At  the  outset  we  make  no  differ- 
ence between  Biblical  statements  of  fact  and 
other  statements  of  fact. 

I  do  not  know  to  what  extent  the  higher  crit- 
ics of  the  Modern  View  would  dispute  the 
rule  for  testimony,  as  I  have  stated  it.  It  is 
not  easy  to  see  how  any  one  can  dispute  it. 
But  if  they  accept  the  rule,  their  procedure 
under  it  is  very  different  from  ours.  They 
have  among  them  an  established  tradition  of 
some  hundreds  or  thousands  of  instances  of 
false  statements  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. It  seems  to  us  that  they  accept  these 
instances  without  due  scrutiny.  The  accepting 
of  them  creates  in  the  mind  the  impression  that 
other  statements  of  fact  from  the  same  sources 
are  likely  to  be  untrustworthy;  and  so  their  d:s- 
15 


regard  of  the  Biblical  testimony  grows  as  they 
proceed  in  their  investigations.  We,  on  the 
contrary,  examine  each  of  the  alleged  instances 
before  rejecting  it,  with  the  result  that  most  of 
the  instances  at  once  disappear,  and  our  confi- 
dence in  the  Bible  testimony  grows  as  we  pro- 
ceed. As  our  courses  diverge,  we  are  compelled 
to  regard  theirs  as  unscientific  and  misleading 
and  disastrous.  As  for  us,  we  reach  at  length 
a  position  where  we  are  able  to  affirm  with 
conviction  the  propositions  which  we  waived 
at  the  outset,  namely  the  thorough  truthfulness 
and  the  unique  divine  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  therefore  the  authoritative  character 
of  their  teachings. 

Our  differences  with  the  men  of  the  Modern 
View  are  not  merely  or  rhainly  over  their  de- 
structive criticism.  "  If  they  closed  their  la- 
bors with  the  completion  of  the  destructive 
work,  they  and  we  might  still  agree  concerning 
the  contents  of  the  Biblical  narrative  as  it 
has  been  handed  down  to  us.  We  might  un- 
derstand the  story  alike,  and  learn  from  it  the 
same  spiritual  lessons,  though  they  would  af- 
firm that  much  of  it  is  not  fact,  and  that  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing  what  the  actual 
facts  were.  But  they  are  not  content  to  leave 
l6 


the  matter  thus.  Having  completed  their  work 
of  destruction,  they  must  needs  reconstruct  the 
history.  Rejecting  half  the  facts  as  affirmed  in 
the  testimony,  both  those  that  outline  the  "his- 
tory and  those  that  concern  its  details,  they 
are  compelled  to  substitute  slenderly  drawn 
inferences  and  analogies,  or  mere  conjectures, 
thus  building  up  a  new  account,  utterly  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  old,  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  This 
new  account — or  rather,  these  new  accounts, 
for  each  critic  has  his  own  view  of  the  recon- 
structed history — are  confessedly  without  any 
adequate  basis  of  facts.  Really,  each  of  them 
is  a  work  of  fiction,  presenting  its  author's 
idea  of  the  way  in  which  certain  things  pre- 
sumably evohed  themselves.  For  my  own 
part,  if  I  agreed  witfi  these  writers  in  thinking 
that  the  Biblical  version  of  the  history  is 
untrue  to  fact,  I  should  still  immensely  prefer 
the  ancient  fiction  in  the  case  to  any  of  the 
modern  fictions.  And  when  these  recent  works 
of  fiction,  with  their  confessed  lack  of  founda- 
tion in  fact,  claim  to  be  received  as  historical, 
*  to  the  superseding  of  the  history  as  given  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  this  seems  to 
many  of  us  more  objectionable  than  even  the 
destructive  criticism  that  preceded. 


III.  The  passages  that  have  been  cited  affirm 
that  ''the  two  methods  camiot  be  mingled," 
that  "if  either  side  crosses  the  dividing  Hne  .  .  , 
the  issue  between  them  dies  out  and  debate 
ceases  for  lack  of  a  question."  Whatever  this 
may  mean,  it  is  uncritical.  The  proper  ques- 
tion to  ask  is  not,  "Which  side  is  true?"  but, 
"What  is  the  truth  in  the  case?"  The  ceasing 
of  debate  is  not  a  calamity,  provided  the  de- 
bate ceases  because  the  question  is  solved. 

In  its  context  this  statement  that  the  two 
methods  cannot  be  mingled  seems  to  be  given 
as  a  reason  why  we  should  not  flinch  even 
when  the  conclusions  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
become  startling  and  shocking.  The  reasoning 
seems  to  be  that  there  are*  just  these  two  po- 
sitions to  take  and  no  others,  so  that  the  only 
thing  to  do  is  to  choose  one  of  the  two  paths 
and  then  follow  it,  no  matter  where  it  leads. 

Instead  of  this,  I  should  like  to  advocate  a 
different  alignment  of  the  issues  involved.  The 
problem  is  not  one  of  those  in  which  a  simple 
affirmative  and  a  simple  negative  constitute 
an  exhaustive  list  of  possible  mental  attitudes. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  possible  to  choose 
among  many  different  positions. 

I  am  afraid  that  the  four  paragraphs  I  have 
i8 


cited  are  not  entirely  mistaken  in  the  descrip- 
tion they  give  of  the  existing  attitude  of  cer- 
tain Christian  scholars.  I  am  afraid  that  the 
division  into  parties  is  partly  along  the  lines 
there  indicated.  But  I  believe  that  attitude  to 
be  a  forced  and  unnatural  one.  I  believe  that  the 
present  party  division  on  these  issues  is  one  that 
separates  men  who  ought  to  be  together,  and 
brings  into  alliance  men  whose  real  views  are 
antagonistic.  To  be  more  specific,  Christendom 
is  to-day  full  of  thinking  men  who  reject  the 
older  teachings  concerning  the  Scriptures,  but 
who  are  not  ready  to  take  an  agnostic  position 
concerning  written  revelation  and  miracle  and 
prayer  and  the  personal  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
person  of  Jesus.  In  using  this  term  I  recognize 
the  truth  that  an  agnostic  position  is  the  only 
true  position  in  regard  to  things  that  we  really 
cannot  know.  If  one  is  indeed  convinced  of 
the  unreality  of  revelation  from  God,  and  of 
miracle,  and  of  communication  with  God  in 
prayer,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  Christianity  has  hitherto  presented  these, 
then  he  ought  to  be  an  agnostic  on  these  points, 
and  ought  to  deem  the  name  an  honor,  and 
not  a  reproach.  What  I  am  saying  is  that  many 
who  are  not  agnostic  in  their  convictions 
19 


are  at  present  allowing  themselves  to  be  lined 
up  with  the  agnostics  in  the  attack  upon  old- 
fashioned  orthodoxy.  Their  influence  is  on 
the  side  of  agnosticism,  while  really  their  dif- 
ferences with  agnosticism,  are  far  more  inpor- 
tant  than  their  differences  with  orthodoxy. 
The  attitude  is  an  abnormal  one,  and  they 
ought  not  to  consent  to  remain  in  it. 

Here  is  a  higher  critic  who  is  also  a  man  of 
earnest  convictions  as  a  Christian.  He  be- 
lieves in  a  heavenly  Father  who  is  personal  in 
such  a  sense  that  a  praying  soul  can  have  real 
communication  with  him.  He  believes  in  a 
divine  Holy  Spirit  everywhere  influencing  men 
for  holiness.  All  his  hope  centers  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus.  Perhaps  he  is  a  Trinitarian,  ac- 
cepting the  doctrine  that  Jesus  Christ  is  at 
once  very  God  and  very  man.  At  all  events, 
he  honors  and  loves  Christ  as  supreme  Lord. 
He  counts  Jesus  as  peerless  among  men.  He 
regards  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  both  intel- 
lectually and  morally  worthy  of  the  highest 
reverence.  He  regards  the  Scriptures  as  in 
some  genuine  sense  the  inspired  word  of  God, 
containing  a  revelation  of  certain  divine  re- 
demptive movements,  in  the  centuries  before 
Jesus  and  in  the  time  wlien  Jesus  lived.     And 

20 


he  believes  these  truths  to  be  so  important  that 
the  great  duty  of  Christendom  is  to  learn  them 
and  live  them  and  teach  them  to  all  the  na- 
tions. But  this  same  higher  critic  finds  him- 
self in  line  with  others  in  the  midst  of  a  great 
conflict  that  is  going  on.  He  is  convinced  that 
certain  older  forms  of  teaching  these  doctrines 
that  he  loves  are  crude  and  mistaken.  In 
particular,  he  objects  to  certain  views  concern- 
ing the  Scriptures  as  the  record  of  these  doc- 
trines. On  the  side  opposed  to  him,  therefore, 
he  sees  the  men  who  represent  the  older  or- 
thodoxy. Side  by  side  with  him,  as  allies  in 
this  battle,  he  finds  men  of  all  shades  of  opin- 
ion concerning  these  religious  truths  which  he 
regards  as  so  real  and  so  precious.  Among 
them  are  very  many  leaders  who  despise  the 
things  that  seem  to  him  to  be  religious  truths, 
deeming  them  to  be  illusions,  and  commiserat- 
ing him  as  a  man  half  emancipated;  and  the 
trend  is  strongly  to  the  following  of  these 
leaders.  What  ought  this  higher  critic  to  do  in 
the  circumstances?  Is  it  sufficient  for  him 
mildly  to  remark  that  personally  he  thinks 
these  leaders  a  little  extreme  in  the  positions 
they  take?  Does  he  regard  the  overthrow  of 
the   old-fashioned   views   of  the   Scriptures   as 

21 


so  supremely  important  that  he  is  willing,  for 
that  end,  to  bind  himself  to  the  silence  that 
gives  consent,  while  his  allies  flout  the  religious 
ideas  that  seem  to  him  the  most  true  and 
precious? 

When  King  Ahaz,  contrary  to  the  advice  of 
the  prophet,  formed  an  alliance  with  Assyria 
against  his  brethren  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
he  made  the  supreme  mistake  of  Judaite  politi- 
cal history.  His  policy  led  to  the  utter  sub- 
jugation of  Judah.  Now,  as  then,  it  is  perilous 
for  any  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be  in  alliance 
with  the  Assyrians. 

The  difference  of  method,  our  difference  with 
this  class  of  higher  critics,  is  important.  But 
it  is  insignificant  compared  with  that  wiiich 
separates  the  higher  critic  who  accepts  the 
Jesus  of  the  Gospels  as  supreme  Lord  from 
the  other  higher  critic  who  regards  Jesus  as  a 
rather  remarkable  man,  born  no  one  knows 
where,  who  somehow  became  the  focus  of  the 
imagination  of  the  generations  that  followed 
him,  thus  giving  rise  to  that  mass  of  legendary 
narrative,  half  of  it  incredible  and  the  other 
half  but  partly  true,  now  known  as  the  four 
Gospels.  Is  it  too  much  to  ask  that  the  first  of 
these  two  higher  critics  shall  be  outspoken  in 

22 


the  matters  in  which  he  differs  with  the  second? 
This  matter  in  which  he  agrees  essentially  with 
the  men  of  the  older  tradition  is  far  more  im- 
portant than  the  matters  in  which  he  disagrees 
with  them.  Is  he  loyal  to  his  convictions 
if  he  without  protest  simply  stands  by  his  ag- 
nostic ally?  Surely  there  ought  to  be  here  a 
new  alignment  of  forces. 

The  men  who  are  opposed  to  unreasonable 
agnosticism  should  present  a  united  front. 
Much  of  the  current  Higher  Criticism  is  bale- 
fully  agnostic.  Protests  against  it  should  be 
met  with  welcome  and  cooperation  by  reason- 
able higher  critics.  Reasonable  higher  critics 
should  not  say :  We  must  stand  by  our  allies ; 
we  cannot  cross  the  line  to  make  exceptions. 

The  task  thus  assigned  to  the  reasonable 
higher  critics  has  its  difficulties.  It  puts  upon 
them  the  burden  of  refuting  the  claim  that  the 
agnostic  conclusions  follow  necessarily  from 
principles  which  they  themselves  accept — the 
burden  of  so  defining  their  principles  of  Higher 
Criticism  as  to  exclude  the  agnostic  conclu- 
sions. Of  course,  I  think  the  task  an  impos- 
sible one.  But  the  attempt  would  be  in  many 
ways  salutary.  And  in  any  case  the  higher 
critic  who  refuses  to  become  an  agnostic  is 
bound  to  justify  his  course. 


It  is  easy  to  say  that  the  personality  of  Jesus 
is  the  great  thing  in  the  New  Testament  and 
that  it  is  therefore  of  no  particular  importance 
if  the  men  of  the  New  Testament  were 
mistaken  in  many  of  their  opinions  and  in  many 
of  their  statements  of  fact.  I  do  not  now  care 
to  discuss  this  further  than  to  say  that  if  their 
errors  are  sufficiently  extensive  to  vitiate  their 
testimony  concerning  the  personality  of  Jesus, 
then  the  matter  becomes  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance. Independent  of  the  New  Testament  we 
have  no  adequate  knowledge  of  the  personality 
of  Jesus.  Distinguished  higher  critics  affirm 
that  the  accounts  of  the  virgin  birth,  the  rising 
from  the  dead,  the  ascension  are  fables ;  that 
either  the  account  of  the  death  of  Jesus  or 
else  the  several  accounts  of  his  interviews  with 
men  after  his  death  are  untrue;  that  the  pas- 
sages in  Matthew  and  Luke  in  which  he  is  rep- 
resented as  speaking  in  detail  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  were  written  after  that  event, 
thus  proving  the  late  date  of  these  gospels, 
and  proving  also  that  they  are  mistaken  in 
attributing  these  sayings  to  Jesus ;  that  the 
account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem  and 
all  accounts  which  imply  that  there  was  at  that 
time  a  city  called  Nazareth  are  untrue  to  fact; 
24 


that  the  account  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
is  a  make-up,  tlie  so-called  sermon  being  a 
piecing  together  of  some  one's  recollection  of 
various  teachings  uttered  at  various  times ; 
that  the  accounts  of  the  temptation  and  the 
various  accounts  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  are 
colored  by  the  imagination  of  later  generations. 

I  suppose  that  not  less  than  half  tlie  state- 
ments made  in  the  four  Gospels  concerning 
Jesus  are  thus  discredited,  and  this  of  course 
implies  the  diminishing  of  the  credit  of  all  the 
statements  that  remain.  This  is  done  by  lead- 
ers among  the  higher  critics  and  there  is  no 
clear,  emphatic  repudiation  of  it  by  the  remain- 
ing higher  critics.  But  if  one  to  this  ex- 
tent discredits  the  gospels,  can  we  afterward 
depend  upon  their  presentation  of  the  person- 
ality of  Jesus  as  being  true  to  fact?  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  personality  of  Jesus  is  a 
living  reality  to  some  who  hold  these  views ; 
but  it  is  so  as  the  product  of  their  religious 
insight,  and  at  the  cost  of  their  intellectual  in- 
consistency. 

Further,  it  is  easy  to  say  that  Jesus  him- 
self affirms  that  there  are  limitations  to  his 
knowledge,  and  therefore  that  our  high  estimate 
of  him  need  not  suffer  even  if  he  honestly 
25 


affirmed  some  things  that  we  now  know  to  be 
contrary  to  fact.  Here,  as  in  the  preceding  in- 
stance, I  do  not  care  to  discuss  the  general 
proposition.  The  question  is  not  concerning 
some  supposable  limitations  of  the  inerrancy 
either  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  Jesus ;  it  is  con- 
cerning the  limitations  that  are  actuallj'^  at- 
tributed to  them.  Distinguished  writers  affirm 
that  Jesus  taught  wrong  views  concerning  the 
history  of  his  nation,  concerning  Moses  and 
the  institutions  of  Israel,  concerning  Moses  as 
a  writer,  concerning  David  and  the  Psalms, 
concerning  his  own  descent  from  David,  con- 
cerning the  powers  of  healing  he  exercised, 
concerning  prediction  by  the  ancient  prophets, 
concerning  his  second  coming,  concerning  his 
resurrection,  concerning  the  supernatural  au- 
thority of  Scripture,  concerning  many  other 
matters,  in  fine,  that  a  large  percentage  of  his 
most  important  teachings  are  contrary  to  the 
truth.  They  claim  that  it  is  the  part  of  true 
friendship  for  Jesus  to  admit  that  he  was  thus 
mistaken  in  a  large  part  of  the  range  of  his 
teaching,  saying  that  he  could  not  be  expect- 
ed to  be  so  far  in  advance  of  his  age  as  to 
avoid  these  mistakes.  Now  when  a  man  tells 
me  that  he  thus  discounts  the  statements  of 
26 


Jesus,  say  thirty  per  cent.,  and  in  the  same 
breath  tells  me  that  he  bows  in  reverence  be- 
fore the  intellectual  and  moral  peerlessness  of 
Jesus,  I  do  not  doubt  his  sincerity,  but  I 
think  he  is  more  likely  than  Jesus  to  be  the 
mistaken  man.  For  most  men  the  peerlessness 
of  Jesus  is  gone  if  they  get  to  thinking  that  he 
was  either  so  weak-minded  or  so  careless  as 
to  be  a  good  deal  in  the  habit  of  making  asser- 
tions that  he  did  not  know  to  be  true. 

If  the  men  who  believe  in  the  reality  of 
Jesus  as  he  is  accepted  in  Christian  experience 
would  be  outspoken  in  their  opposition  to 
those  who  teach  the  contrary,  and  would  so 
define  their  critical  attitude  as  to  justify  their 
belief,  there  would  be  a  tremendous  realign- 
ment of  the  forces  now  engaged  in  the  battles 
of  criticism. 

IV.  The  reason  given  in  the  passages  cited 
for  having  no  "doubts  and  fears"  concerning 
the  Higher  Criticism  is  that  it  is  accepted  "in 
its  main  points"  in  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  by  "almost  the  whole  body  of 
educated  teachers  in  our  colleges  and  theologi- 
cal seminaries."  This  is  an  overstatement, 
though  it  is  nearer  to  the  truth  than  I  wish  it 
were.  Those  of  us  wTio  do  not  accept  the 
27 


Modern  View  are  not  so  utterly  lonesome  as 
many  seem  to  imagine. 

So  far  forth  as  this  consensus  among  men 
who  occupy  educational  positions  is  a  fact,  the 
fact  is  largely  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
splendid  skill  with  which  the  men  of  the  Mod- 
ern View  have  managed  their  propaganda,  and 
largely  by  the  phenomenal  blundering  of  their 
opponents. 

The  nature  of  tbe  consensus  is  not  precisely 
that  which  one  might  at  first  imagine.  What 
are  these  "main  points"  on  which  all  tliese 
scholars  agree?  Answer  this  question  specifi- 
cally and  you  will  greatly  diminish  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  agreement.  Further,  there  is  no 
point  in  which  the  existing  consensus  is  more 
uniform  than  in  this:  that  the  opinions  held 
ten  years  hence  will  probably  be  very  different 
from  those  now  held.  A  consensus  in  regard 
to  matters  that  are  known  to  be  fluctuating 
differs   from  a  final  consensus. 

But  even  if  the  consensus  were  less  tentative 
in  its  character,  and  if  there  were  not  these 
ways  of  accounting  for  a  part  of  it,  and  if  it 
were  more  nearly  unanimous  than  it  is,  we 
of  the  opposition  could  not  consent  to  be  so 
uncritical  as  to  accept  it  as  conclusive.  The 
28 


knowledge  of  truth  depends  upon  evidence,  and 
not  upon  majority  votes.  The  opinion  of  re- 
spected men  has  its  own  proper  value  as  evi- 
dence, and  no  more.  The  consensus  in  the 
American  and  British  colleges  and  seminaries 
was  more  complete  fifty  years  ago  than  it  is 
now.  That  consensus  does  not  prove  that  the 
views  then  held  were  true ;  and  this  consensus 
does  not  prove  that  the  very  different  views 
now  held  are  true. 

On  the  whole,  we  may  venture  to  disre- 
gard this  consensus  in  points  in  which  the 
evidence  seems  to  us  to  be  against  it. 

But  if  we  do  this,  says  the  cited  passage, 
"the  question  may  well  be  raised  whether"  we 
"are  sane."  That  is  really  frightful.  Of 
course  one  would  prefer  not  to  be  considered 
insane.  But  we  do  hold  that  conclusions 
should  be  based  on  evidence  rather  than  on  a 
current  fashion  of  opinion.  If  this  is  a  mark 
of  insanity  we  shall  have  to  plead  guilty.  We 
take  comfort  in  contemplating  certain  earlier 
instances  of  alleged  insanity  of  this  type,  the 
cases  of  Jeremiah  and  of  Jesus,  for  example. 
And  inasmuch  as  the  specific  delusion  charged 
upon  us  consists  in  our  being  confident  that 
the  Scriptures  are  truthful  and  inspired,  we 
29 


take  comfort  in  reflecting  that  we  share  that 
delusion  with  nearly  all  the  men  who  have 
heretofore  made  the  religion  of  the  Scriptures 
the  greatest  blessing  the  world  ever  had.  On 
the  basis  of  the  rule,  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them,"  we  can  afford  to  compare  our 
views  with  the  views  of  our  opponents. 

Fully  conscious  that  the  theories  of  the  past 
need  improvement;  acknowledging  that  the 
present  revolution  is  in  part  a  revolt  against 
wrong  ideas  and  methods;  appreciating  the 
great  light  from  exploration,  and  the  greater 
light  from  linguistic  studies  which  have  arisen 
within  the  past  sixty  years;  recognizing  the 
good  work  which  literary  criticism  has  done  at 
many  points ;  holding  our  minds  open  to  every 
tested  discovery  of  truth  from  every  source; 
we  are  yet  certain  that  there  will  be  no  final 
settlement  of  Biblical  questions  on  the  basis  of 
the  higher  criticism  that  is  now  commonly 
called  by  that  name.  Many  specific  teachings 
of  the  system  will  doubtless  abide.  But  so  far 
forth  as  it  goes  upon  the  assumption  that 
statements  of  fact  in  the  Scriptures  are  pretty 
generally  false,  so  far  forth  it  is  incapable  of 
establishing  genuinely  perrhanent  results. 


30 


Date  Due 


Tj^m^*^- 



^ 

